![\"Max](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776773117_171_max-verstappen-red-bull-racing.jpg\")
<\/p>\nAhead of the Miami Grand Prix, the FIA has introduced targeted tweaks to the 2026 regulations, focused primarily on improving qualifying, where heavy energy management had prevented drivers from pushing flat-out. The governing body has also addressed safety concerns raised after the opening races, particularly around large speed differentials, and introduced adjustments to start procedures to minimise the risk of incident.<\/p>\n
As expected, no major tweaks have been made, as the sport\u2019s chiefs are satisfied with the quality of racing delivered in the first grands prix of the season \u2013 despite some concerns raised by several drivers and fans on social media.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read Also:<\/p>\n
Will these changes be enough? Our international panel of journalists offer their views.<\/p>\n
Formula 1 is treating symptoms rather than the disease<\/p>\n
Jules de Graaf – Motorsport.com Netherlands:<\/p>\n
If Formula 1\u2019s 2026 regulations are already being \u201cfixed\u201d before they\u2019ve properly settled in, that in itself tells a story \u2013 but not necessarily the one it might seem at first glance. The FIA\u2019s latest round of adjustments is, on paper, exactly how the championship should function: identify early weaknesses, respond quickly, and refine rather than panic. In that sense, it is a system working as intended.<\/p>\n
And yet, there is an uncomfortable tension beneath that logic. Because while these tweaks may reduce the most visible problems \u2013 excessive lift-and-coast, extreme closing speeds, and drivers forced into energy saving rather than flat-out racing \u2013 they do little to address the deeper philosophical question at the heart of the 2026 concept. If the cars are fundamentally designed around energy management, then the racing will inevitably orbit around that constraint. You can recalibrate the numbers, but you cannot entirely recalibrate the behaviour they incentivise.<\/p>\n
That is why it increasingly feels as though Formula 1 is treating symptoms rather than the disease. The direction \u2013 electrification, efficiency, manufacturer relevance \u2013 was always going to come with trade-offs, much like the hybrid transition of 2014, the turbo-engine transition of the early 1980s, or even the engine formula modifications in 1961. A messy early phase is not unprecedented. But acknowledging that does not automatically make the outcome satisfactory from a sporting perspective.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Max Verstappen has been a vocal critic of the 2026 rules<\/p>\n
Photo by: Mark Thompson \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n
There is also the matter of perception. When drivers, teams and fans openly describe the cars in such negative terms so early in a regulation cycle, the narrative hardens quickly \u2013 and narratives are far harder to rewrite than rulebooks.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the real verdict will not come from data traces or revised kilowatt figures, but from the cockpit. If drivers still feel they are managing systems more than racing each other, then no amount of fine-tuning will convincingly argue that 2026 has been \u201cfixed\u201d \u2013 for now.<\/p>\n
Enough for whom?<\/p>\n
Federico Faturos, Motorsport.com Latin America:<\/p>\n
From Stefano Domenicali\u2019s perspective, judging by the comments he made in his exclusive interview with Motorsport.com last week, the changes announced by the FIA on Monday will probably be enough. In fact, I\u2019d go as far as to say he will be hoping they help draw a line under the negative narrative surrounding the problems caused by Formula 1\u2019s new rules, regardless of his insistence that the data gathered by the championship so far this season has been more positive than negative.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Read Also:<\/p>\n
Whether they will be enough for drivers and old-school F1 fans, however, is another matter entirely.<\/p>\n
One thing is certain: with the cars set to return to the track next week after April\u2019s enforced break, what was announced on Monday appears to be a step in the right direction.<\/p>\n
No one expected those meetings to produce a revolution, as that would have required hardware changes \u2013 something impossible at this stage. But these tweaks look like logical adjustments within the scope of what can realistically be done now that the regulations are already in force.<\/p>\n
A couple of weeks ago, in a previous edition of this feature, when asked what F1 should change within the current rules, I wrote that safety had to be the first priority, ahead of qualifying laps, lift and coast, and everything else. It was simply unacceptable for the series to allow situations like the one involving Oliver Bearman<\/a> and Franco Colapinto<\/a> at Suzuka, which ended with the Haas driver limping away after climbing out of the car.<\/p>\n In that regard, I particularly welcome the measures introduced to reduce closing speeds between cars, as well as the decisions taken to mitigate the issues at race starts \u2013 another key area that needed to be addressed.<\/p>\n All in all, this is unlikely to satisfy everyone when it comes to F1\u2019s new era, but it does show that those concerns were heard. Now, the changes need to be given a little time to show their true impact on track.<\/p>\n Oliver Bearman, Haas F1 Team car after his crash<\/p>\n Photo by: Kym Illman \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n Safety comes first \u2013 but at what cost?<\/p>\n Ken Tanaka, Motorsport.com Japan:<\/p>\n Safety is, of course, of paramount importance. Even in a category as fast as Formula 1, there is no doubt that it must always come first. Therefore, any regulation changes made in the interest of safety are entirely justified.<\/p>\n However, there is one aspect that raises questions. It concerns the adjustments aimed at ensuring cars can run at full throttle in qualifying. Under the latest changes, the per-lap energy harvesting limit will be reduced from 8MJ to 7MJ. This effectively means that the amount of electrical energy available per lap is reduced \u2013 and that, in turn, means slower lap times. Is that really what we want?<\/p>\n It is worth asking what kind of Formula 1 we want to see. Opinions may differ.<\/p>\n Do we want to see F1 cars running at full throttle all the time? Or do we want to see faster F1 cars? Personally, I want to see faster F1. I want to see cars breaking lap records \u2013 provided, of course, that safety is not compromised.<\/p>\n During the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, Kimi Antonelli set the fastest Q3 lap with a time of 1:28.778. That was still 1.8 seconds off the Suzuka Circuit lap record of 1:26.983. The pole position time in China showed a similar picture. And this is only the second or third race under the new regulations \u2013 an extraordinary situation.<\/p>\n From that perspective, it is fair to say that the new-generation F1 cars have the potential to become extremely fast.<\/p>\n The changes will come into force in Miami<\/p>\n Photo by: Glenn Dunbar \/ Motorsport Images<\/p>\n Given more time, it also seemed likely that qualifying would eventually return to full-throttle running even under the original regulations.<\/p>\n In that sense, while the agreement between the FIA, Formula 1, and the teams to adjust the regulations should be respected, questions still remain \u2013 particularly when it comes to qualifying.<\/p>\n F1 must define what it wants to be<\/p>\n Michael Banovsky, Motorsport.com Global edition:<\/p>\n F1 has created its own problems by insisting through successive formulae and rules tweaks that it must be seen as the pinnacle of motorsport \u2013 but what does that now mean?<\/p>\n It\u2019s not about car parity: boring races and streaks still happen in IndyCar and NASCAR. It\u2019s not about eschewing hybridisation for “better racing”: I grew up in an era when it was strange if a handful of F1 cars didn\u2019t retire in a cloud of metallic anguish.<\/p>\n The rules are probably, mostly, fine. I think F1 must be much more transparent in explaining the type of racing it’s bringing fans, and what a grand prix is now meant to be. Is it wheel-to-wheel \u201cMario Kart\u201d, or watching some teams dominate? Are races meant to be won by one second or 20? F1 can’t, and will never, have it all. It must lean into the kind of racing it wants to deliver.<\/p>\n Until that’s settled, we will have the world’s best drivers, teams, and cars chasing an F1 ruleset incapable of catching up with our increasingly unrealistic expectations of what grands prix should be.<\/p>\n Charles Leclerc, Ferrari, George Russell, Mercedes, Oscar Piastri, McLaren<\/p>\n Photo by: Andy Hone\/ LAT Images via Getty Images<\/p>\n A rapid change of direction can be destructive<\/p>\n Khaldoun Younes, Motorsport.com Middle East:<\/p>\n It is no secret that, no matter how well-crafted the theoretical studies of the regulations may be, the true judgement of their success is what we see on track.<\/p>\n The 2026 season has brought the biggest radical change in the sport in a long time, and as expected, the controversy has been as significant as the change itself: artificial overtakes, \u201cyo-yo\u201d racing, and a reduction in driver control of the car amid an increase in multiple additional influencing elements.<\/p>\n After fingers were pointed at the growing role of electrical energy, a series of consecutive meetings has indeed been held between the teams, the championship, and the FIA, resulting in adjustments to the current package being brought to light.<\/p>\n![\"Oliver](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/1774848910_40_oliver-bearman-haas-f1-team-ca.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776863659_297_lando-norris-mclaren-oscar-pia.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Charles](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1776863660_731_charles-leclerc-ferrari-george.jpg\")
<\/p>\n